I also find the HiddenField check annoying. So I removed the two rules that were talked about and removed the Checkstyle 3.5 configuration. I haven't deleted the v4 configuration due to Vincent's comment (I've also not upgraded, yet), so I let it stay for the moment. We can always remove it later.
http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=820554&view=rev On 29.09.2009 19:20:57 Vincent Hennebert wrote: > Hi Max, > > Max Berger wrote: > > Vincent, > > > > > > 2009/9/29 Vincent Hennebert: > >> I started to write my own checkstyle configuration from scratch some > >> time ago, enabling everything that looked important to me. But I’d like > >> to test it a bit more before submitting it. > > > > Same here. See the checkstyle file for JEuclid as an example. > > > > http://jeuclid.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/jeuclid/jeuclid/file/tip/support/build-tools/src/main/resources/jeuclid/checkstyle.xml > > > >> Speaking of that, there’s a rule that I would suggest to disable: the > >> HiddenFieldCheck. I don’t really see its benefit. It forces to find > >> somewhat artificial names for variables, where the field name is exactly > >> what I want. Sometimes a method doesn’t have a name following the > >> setField pattern, yet still acts as a setter for Field. This rule would > >> make sense if we were using a Hungarian-like notation for variables > >> (mMember, pParam, etc.), but that’s not the case in FOP. > >> WDYT? > > > > I like the rule, BUT I am ok with an exception for setters and > > constructors (this is IMO a new option in checkstyle 5): > > http://checkstyle.sourceforge.net/config_coding.html#HiddenField > > (Actually this option is available in checkstyle 4.) > > But what is the benefit of that rule? I find it annoying, so unless I am > convinced of its usefulness I’d rather disable it. > > > Vincent Jeremias Maerki